A counselor at a Pennsylvania Community College
stopped wearing her white prayer cap after experiencing hostility to
her Christian identity from some students, a hostility she described
as preventing her from helping them. The Assistant Principal of a
Mennonite High School testified to the slow erosion of plain dress
among faculty and students. The dress code for faculty had been
made optional a few years ago and traditional plain dress among the
instructors began to disappear. Some teachers still wore it, but
most opted for an acceptable simplicity in “modern” dress. The
students had to observe no more than what is considered a normal
dress code for most high schools in the nation.

Both plain dress and religious habits have been under
public censure for over a century. Quakers largely abandoned plain
dress over 100 years ago, while many Mennonites who maintained such
dress far into the twentieth century now show signs of creeping
abandonment. Clerical garb is rarely worn by mainline Protestant
clergy, and Vatican II led to wide changes of dress among American
Catholic religious orders, with many orders updating, and some even
jettisoning, their traditional habits.

However, in the last 20 years, some groups have shown
renewed interest in plain dress and religious habits, embracing the
witness this clothing makes. From new Catholic orders like Mother
Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity and the Franciscan Friars of the
Renewal, through some Baptist and Seventh-Day Adventist
congregations, to certain Quaker and Mennonite assemblies – each
group has rejected the vapid liberalism that embraces the politics,
dominant culture, and degraded values of the present day.

My chief concern in writing this paper is
to examine the spiritual dimensions – both negative and positive –
of plain dress, doing so generally from a Conservative Quaker
perspective, though I also intend to draw observations from other
faith contexts where these appear useful and illuminating. As a
starting point, I will review the substance (or lack of it) in the
arguments set forth against plain and/or religious dress by those
who have chosen to abandon it. Second, I will delineate the
spiritual difference between Quakers who choose to don plain dress
and those Old Order Amish and Mennonite communities who require it
of their members – for this difference is significant. Third, I
will review the spiritual dangers facing men and women who “go
plain” for the wrong reasons, before I enumerate certain signs that
some may be spiritually called by their Lord to dress plain. It
will be obvious from this discussion that I am not advocating plain
dress for all – for some yes, but simple dress for most. Our
original Friends were quite clear that our Lord does not desire
outward uniformity or regimentation, but inward obedience to His
commandments. I’ll conclude by noting several important values of
plain dress, values not often touched on by its modern supporters
and detractors.

A Friar, Bernardo Finelli1,
writing in 1983, summarized many of the
reasons that people gave for abandoning distinctive religious dress,
or for wearing it only for selected religious functions. “Some of
the reasons they give,” he noted, are “’We can better approach
people when we are like them; we will not offend people who are not
of our Faith; it is very uncomfortable to wear a habit because it is
cumbersome. You should not wear the habit to certain places or the
people who see you will be scandalized.’ These are among many of
the reasons I have heard personally from many different Religious,”
Finelli observed.

Among those who are not church officials (i.e.,
“professional Religious”), the reasons against dressing plain have a
somewhat similar ring. Perhaps a motivation for some of the
abandonment stems from each generation’s desire to differentiate
itself from its elders: an attitude that twentieth century Western
media strongly encouraged. Others simply bow to the desire to “fit
in,” to avoid the rejection and hostility of those in the World who
may resent both faith and people of faith. Often this avoidance is
justified by explanations that carry a certain level of
self-righteousness and accusation against those who choose to go
plain. “We have accepted the World’s dress and fashions because
we’re more approachable if we dress like others, rather than wearing
a sign of separation that makes people reticent about approaching
us.” The accusation is that those who wear religious signs and
symbols have caused their own alienation by trying to be “holier
than everyone else.”

Some argue more reasonably that plain and simple
dress did not disappear: it simply took modern forms. In the 1950s,
it took the form of the gray flannel business suit and the business
suit today represents a standard of plainness for millions of men.
Another “mutation” of plainness which appears everywhere is the
outfit of blue jeans and T-shirts that millions upon millions of men
and women of all ages wear as their daily dress, even on occasions
that have been declared as semi-formal or formal. Some who desire
to demonstrate political solidarity with “the peasants and workers”
have donned bib-overalls or the workman’s rugged work shirt and
trousers. Unisex fashions are plain enough even to blur the gender
lines. Yet, I do not want to imply that these modern fashions –
even the most simple ones – are worn by most people for religious or
even socially positive reasons like living simply. The vast
majority of simple dressers would sum up the reason for their wear
in one word: comfort. They make no statements, religious or
otherwise, except those that might be printed on their T-shirts or
tank tops.

Finally, the rampant, even violent, hostility
towards people of faith living under anti-religious and totalitarian
regimes over the last century has added its weighty contribution to
the abandonment of plain dress and religious habits. Religious
dress in many countries (like France, Mexico, the old Soviet Union,
China, Eastern Europe) in the twentieth century was interpreted as a
sign that one was an enemy of the political state. Even in Western
democracies, disdain and censoriousness have characterized much
worldly reaction to plain or religious dress, evidence of a steady
erosion of faith within those democracies over the last century.
Such government activity is still evident today. France, as
recently as the last five years, enacted legislation prohibiting the
wearing of obvious religious dress and symbols in schools and other
public places.

When we evaluate the arguments against plain and
simple dress, they fare rather poorly. Most smack of a desire to
conform to the World’s fashions or a wish to avoid the discomfort or
outright hostility of being judged negatively for one’s faith and
witness. [return]

2.Quaker versus Amish Emphasis on Plain Dress

A knowledge of the history of plain dress among
Friends and of the difference between Quaker plainness and
Amish/Mennonite plainness are important, especially for those among
today’s Quakers who are beginning to suspect their motives for
“acting like everybody else” and who sense a call to witness more
deeply in word and action to their faith.

The first two Quaker generations between the 1650s
and the 1690s in England and America stressed the wearing of
serviceable, simple clothing without decoration and without regard
to changes in fashion or class differences. The motivation for such
clothing came from the inward promptings of God’s Spirit, moving men
and women to simpler lives that stressed the proper use of what
their Creator had given them. The emphasis was on plain and simple
without outward regimentation through a uniformity of dress. Later
generations sought greater uniformity in dress for a number of
outward reasons, ones that would be familiar to Old Order Amish and
Mennonite communities. These latter groups are known for their
conformity to plain dress and its general uniformity, a conformity
and uniformity supported by the outward expectations of the group.

The ethnic garb:
(1) signals that a member has yielded to the collective order,
(2) prevents dress from being used for self-adornment,
(3) promotes equality,
(4) creates a common consciousness that bolsters group identity,
(5) increases social control because members are expected to “act
Amish” when in uniform,
(6) projects a united public front, which conceals diversity in
other areas, and
(7) erects symbolic boundaries around the group – the equivalent of
a cultural moat [58].

Outward expectations and pressure from family,
friends, and church elders appear to be strong motivators for
plainness among the Amish, though some may also be responding to an
inward spiritual prompting from their Lord.

With far fewer positive outward motivators than plain
Anabaptists have, our Quaker dress is rooted primarily in the inward
dimension. We seek inwardly for how Christ Jesus our Lord would
have us live out our witness to His presence. We recognize He may
move some to don plain dress and will instruct others to dress with
simplicity and modesty. Our end is the same: obedience to the will
of our Lord, who knows us better than we know ourselves, and who
knows what is most appropriate and useful for each of us. Some are
directed to go plain, while most are called simply to dress with
simplicity. Neither the one nor the other reflects a special or
“more holy” status. Neither one nor the other should receive the
designation of “preferred outward expression” for our inward
obedience to Christ’s presence and leading, for Christ Jesus does
the preferring for each one of us.

Kraybill, in his study of Amish dress, notes that
“relinquishing control over the presentation and ornamentation of
one’s body is a fundamental offering – the supreme* sign that the
self has yielded to a higher authority” [The Riddle of Amish
Culture 58]. While I agree that it is a fundamental offering,
in terms of being basic or primary, Kraybill appears to overstate
the significance of plain dress when he terms it “the supreme
sign that the self has yielded to a higher authority.” A sign yes,
but nowhere near the extraordinary signs of sacrifice of one’s
fortune or one’s life for one’s faith. [return]

3.The Spiritual Dangers of Plain Dress

There are serious dangers in plain dress, if it is
worn for the wrong reasons, dangers that can lead us defame our
brethren and sisters in Christ and make a stink of our faith. Simon
Watson,2a
Quaker in the United Kingdom, observes:

If
there is one useful thing I have learnt (the hard way), it is the
uselessness of just putting oneself into a ‘plain regime.’ This
rapidly becomes a self-willed world of empty works. The authentic
plain life is not so much an emptying out of worldliness, but a
filling up with Christ’s Spirit which in turn gives us something so
enriching and beautiful that the things of the world, the colorful
adornments and affectations of the wealthy, pale in comparison.

Plain dress neither confers nor signifies holiness in
itself. It should be worn as a result of obedience to God’s
directing, remembering that our Lord emphasizes that our entire
inward life is what is important, that the inside of the cup must be
clean, that our hearts cannot be filled with death and
unfaithfulness, as were the hearts of the Pharisees who were
particularly meticulous about their religious clothing. If Christ
Jesus does not rule within us and direct our outward actions
according to His will, our plain dress will be a sign of hypocrisy,
which the world will sooner, rather than later, perceive.

Plain dress can lead to a Pharisaic legalism.
One of the best faith based arguments against plain dress was made
by the seventeenth century Quaker minister and leader Margaret Fell,
who did so in an eloquent and perceptive General Epistle to second
and third generation Quakers bent on regimenting dress among the
faithful. Her admonition is worth studying, because it points up
one of the great dangers in dressing plain for the wrong reasons.
She admonished against the growing tendency to stress regimented
outward appearance, rather than inward spiritual obedience. Like
the Pharisees before them, Friends were in great danger of measuring
one another by their outward clothing, rather than emphasizing the
heart of holiness – and this was particularly dangerous for young
people:

It
is a dangerous thing to lead young Friends much into the observation
of outward things, which may be easily done, for they can soon get
into an outward garb, to be all alike outwardly, but this will not
make them true Christians: it’s the Spirit that gives life.

She continues:

Let us all take heed of touching anything like the ceremonies of
the Jews [the outward legal practices of the Pharisees]; for that
was displeasing unto Christ, for he came to bear witness against
them…testified against their broad phylacteries…so that we may see
how well he liked their outward ceremonies. So let us keep to the
rule and leading of the eternal Spirit, that God hath given us to be
our teacher; and let that put on and off as is meet and serviceable
for every one’s state and condition. And let us take heed of
limiting in such practices; for we are under the Gospel leading and
guiding and teaching, which is a free spirit, which leads into unity
and lowliness of mind the saints and servants of Christ, desiring to
be established in the free Spirit, not bound or limited.

Plain dress can become a source of divisiveness, if
the spirit of divisiveness is not guarded and spoken against.
If we begin to reject those who dress honestly,
modestly, and simply, we stand in great spiritual danger and
threaten the good unity of God’s people. Likewise, if those who
dress honesty, modestly, and simply reject those who dress plain,
the spiritual danger and disunity is the same.

Plain dress can foster spiritual pride, an attitude
of “look, I’m not like thee.” I’m holier, better, et cetera. If plain dress
leads us to pharisaic pride, so that we pray: “God, thank you I am
not like other men – robbers, evildoers, adulterers – or even like
this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I
get,” we should in no way be wearing it. We must always remember
that we, like all people, are poor, broken, helpless, lost
people without Christ Jesus. If inwardly we are not on our knees
praying “Lord, have mercy on me, a poor sinner” (Luke 18:9-14), we
should avoid plain dress. If such dress is motivated by spiritual
pride, it is not a “relinquishing control over the presentation and
ornamentation of one’s body,” but a rude taking control. It is not
a sign of yieldedness to God, but a sign of an unyielding Self. It
is not a fundamental offering to our Lord, but a fundamental insult
to Him.

Plain dress may in rare cases disguise a predatory
evil. Just as homosexual and heterosexual predators wore
priests’ garb in the Catholic Church, so an occasional predator has
donned plain dress in other religious circles. As our Lord warned
us, the wolf may don the sheep’s woolens.

I identify these dangers, not to discourage the
taking of plain dress, not to argue against its wearing, but to
emphasize that it must be done for the right reason: that our
Lord wills it. If plain dress is put on simply for the sake of
meeting a group’s demands or expectations or to fit into the group,
we do it not to obey God, but to obey the rules and commandments of
men. Before we “go plain,” we need to ask of the Lord, is this
Thy will for me? And we must make very sure that the answer we
hear is His answer, not from our own romantic wishes or base
desires.

Moreover, we must recognize that our
first call is to live and dress simply. An attitude that scowls
“thee is not dressed like me” tears down the Body of Christ by
judging those who are living faithful lives. Faye Chapman, in a
little paper called “Conservative and Honest, but Not Plain,”2emphasizes this point with forthright vigor:

…I
must stand against any standardized external characteristic
expectation that does not unify us in Him. I think the issue of
contemporary costuming to represent a moral position is important,
but my leading is to the modest costume of the twenty-first century
and not an earlier one. I would like to believe that we all choose
life styles out of spiritual leadings and that we have good
explanation to offer to any drawn to ask questions about that life
style because of the noticed differences.

Given
the rightness of Faye’s observations, how can we know whether we are
called to be “plain,” as well as “simple?” [return]

4.Signs That One Might Be Called to Plain Dress

When the true leading towards plainness comes (true
leading being not a self-willed leading), it is often with
the following signs or characteristics:

One of the key signs that Plain Dress may be our
Lord’s will for us is that there will be a cross in it. For instance, John Woolman – an eighteenth century
Quaker minister – was led to dress plainly as the majority of
Friends of his time, but with a difference. He was led to wear an
un-dyed hat as a sign against slavery and as a way of avoiding
supporting slavery through the use of the profitable West Indies hat
dyes which slaves produced. Woolman suffered considerable
mortification, as fellow Quakers misinterpreted his dress and judged
him amiss. One of the most painful moments he records in his
Journal was his arrival in England only to be humiliated by the
response of those at the first Meeting of Ministry and Oversight he
attended. He nearly concluded that our Lord had brought him on the
difficult journey across the Atlantic, only to have him suffer the
humiliation of being rejected and sent back home, when he was moved
by the Spirit to rise and speak in ministry. As Friends listened,
they realized their error in prejudging him by his dress and
welcomed him.

A second key sign that plain dress may be our Lord’s
will for someone is that the leading comes as a surprise. Philip W. Helms,2a Michigan Friend, records just such an
experience:

Several years ago, I found myself strongly led to work toward
greater simplicity in my life, including something approximating
plain dress. This leading came as a surprise, since I was then an
urban Friend and member of a Liberal, university-town Monthly
Meeting. I work as an editor and photographer, which leaves me
immersed in technology and travel.

A third sign of a true leading towards plainness
is that it appears to one as “simply the right thing to do.”
Philip Helms's experience here is again instructive:

…I
ultimately found that it simply felt like the right thing to do.
This aspect of my leadings has perhaps been the most difficult to
explain to others: the sense that something is simply right, not
necessarily supported by extensive or persuasive logic. [return]

5.Arguments for Plain Dress

Plain Dress as a sign – Being made a sign by our Lord is part of a very old
prophetic tradition. We need only consider the unusual behaviors
that the prophet Ezekiel was called to act out as signs to the
people of Israel and we will recognize that our Lord may lead some
of His people in this direction. To people sunk in a World of
ostentation and loneliness, shallowness and materialism, plain or
religious dress are signs that say: “there is another way,”
“there is a different kind of life one can be leading,” “there’s
another set of values, that just those of the World.” Dress thus
becomes a reminder to help men and women recollect and seek our
lord.

Yet, going plain as a sign is also one of the more
spiritually risky acts one may undertake, for pride can easily be
its primary motivation. John the Baptist’s camel’s hair coat and
locust diet, the difficult and physically trying signs that Ezekiel
was called to act out, might be seen as just the right
counterbalance to any temptation hidden in being a sign.

Plain dress as a support to religious community.
Plain dress can be supportive of faithfulness, if
worn for the right reason. It can be the language of a community
that supports and affirms the trust and right relationships our Lord
desires of us. Plain dress can be a visual affirmation of our
common ground in Christ Jesus. On the other hand, if we dress
worldly, making sexually alluring statements of ourselves and
declarations of our conspicuous and self-centered consumption, we
will find that such worldly dress works against faithfulness and
undermines community.

Plain dress as a discipline – I have most often heard this reason as one for
going plain. “It reminds me of who I am, who I’ve serving, and that
I have to watch my words and actions. People know by my dress I’m
trying to live a faithful life and I’d better be doing so with God’s
help.” Going plain as a discipline is the other side of the coin
from “going worldly” to escape the judgment of the watching World.

Plain dress can bring us into communication with
people of the World. Jack Smith, a plain Quaker living near Harrisonburg,
VA, testifies that such communication “has been our experience in
many parts of the world. If we were not dressed plain, there are
many positive experiences we would not have had…. We were even
thought to be Quakers by an English woman while we waited on a
railroad platform in the Midlands and she began a conversation with
us and ended up inviting us to spend the overnight in her home!”

Plain dress as a humiliation to our own pride: The World tells us “look out for number one, be a
leader, be a self-promoter, blow thy own trumpet, stand out in the
crowd, it’s all about you!” My own experience in being called to
plainness is that it proved a humbling down, a firm lesson in
humility. In my region, I became just another one of the plain
folk, folk that live here by the thousands. My individualism
disappeared. Yes, I was different, but in a way that led people to
say “O” or “Oh, oh,” “there’s one of those people,” rather
than “doesn’t he look cool.”

Plain Dress can act to some extent as a protection
against the World and its ways. Such dress can act as a reminder to the wearer of the
pure and chaste life to which we are called. In a sex-soaked World
which encourages men to view women as sex toys, a woman’s plainness
can be a hedge against such bald and banal behavior. Plainness
serves as a warning sign to such men and a declaration of modesty
before the World. [return]

6.What We Must Avoid in Going Plain

What we must avoid is a meaningless regimentation
that emphasizes the outward over the inward, a legalistic Pharisaism
that neglects the heart and soul of our faith. We must be
particularly circumspect about judging by outward appearance, for
contemporary clothing is often conservative, modest, and useful, and
its wearers are often as unconcerned about fashion and style as we
are. A study of plain and simple dress over the centuries shows
that this has long been so. Eighteenth century and early nineteenth
century Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Quakers, and
Anabaptists were almost indistinguishable from one another by
dress. They almost all were plain and simple. Today, as in the
past, we are called to simplicity of dress, but only some are called
to plainness. To be called to plainness is not God’s sign of a
special or marked dispensation, not a step up spiritually, but
actually a humbling down. Thus, our witness should be: simplicity first and foremost – plainness only if
called by our Lord to carry that cross. [return]

NOTES

1Friar
Finelli’s research was praised by Pope John Paul II as the latter
re-emphasized traditional values among Catholic religious. Before
arguing for distinctive religious dress, Finelli captured well the
arguments in the 1970s and 1980s against such dress. [return]